80% kits DO require background checks!

Shurshot, I'm not with you on this.

I've never bought an 80% or built one. I have bought castings. I was a machinist by trade. Making a gun is just machining parts.(Well ,a little more)

There was/is an 80% copy of an STI 1911/2011 race gun frame I looked at for a while.
I pass background checks. I have no interest in criminal activity.

I prefer to retain my unencumbered freedom to create my own things for my own use.

The presistoric folsom flint knapper did not have to SN and register his spear points.
DeShivs can make his blades. You are messing with " To keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

And if I choose to make beer or tamales,or horse shoes or rocking chairs,leave me alone.
 
The underlying assumption by gun control advocates is that if only the new ATF rule had been in place for the last three years, those 8 incidents mentioned would not have occurred. People, you see, are expected to behave like robots programmed to do one thing in only one way, and to exhibit no ingenuity in finding workarounds. If you deprive these people of a particular weapon, there is no way they will find some alternate source of weaponry to commit the crime with. This ignores motivation and determination to do the crime. And...wait for it...you can't prove the rule wouldn't have worked because the numbers are less than normal year-to-year crime number variation. That means you can't see a positive difference even if there is one. It also means you can't prove the law didn't help. It's an example of proponents taking the fact a negative can't be proven to celebrate the effects of their work as a presumed victory when there is actually at least equal reason to suppose it was a complete failure based on all the opportunities that exist to acquire stolen guns.

Diane Feinstein's original "Assault Weapon" ban was another example of this. The estimates at the time of its inception were that military-style rifles might be involved in 0.2% of all shooting homicides. Of course, the annual figures randomly vary more than that, so, failure of the law is generally safe from detection by statistical means, allowing its proponents to claim they did great and important and effective work. In this particular case, however, it backfired. As CBS 60 Minutes reported two years after the law went into effect, there had been no measurable effect on the crime rate attributable to the law, but the one measurable difference it did make was that the debate leading up to the enactment of the ban had created so much public interest in military-style semi-automatics that the number in private hands had tripled (and that was just two years in; its much, much more now). The late Morely Safer confronted Senator Feinstein with this fact on camera, and all she could do was bluster "but…but…that's against the spirit of the law!" Well, yes it was. As Hamurabi pointed out 4000 years ago, laws only work when the people perceive them as fair and justly administered. Otherwise, they don't work.
 
There are always those willing to submit to further restrictions on the rights of others, so long as it doesn't impact their rights.

Trap shooters who support banning 'assault' rifles, hunters who support banning handguns, people who can clear whatever various hurdles supporting hurdles for others.

Those people don't really believe in 'freedom', they believe in THEIR freedom.

Larry
 
The sloppy half hearted poorly executed attempt to ban and restrict "assault weapons" was the biggest sales boost ARs and other military LOOK ALIKE firearms could have ever gotten.

I doubt it was Feinstein's gang's intent, but it absolutely WAS the result.

They MADE the AR "the most popular rifle in the country", by creating a huge consumer interest where there had only been a small interest before. Lots and LOTS of people who had never previously been interested in AR and similar "assault weapons" GOT interested, because they were now "Forbidden Fruit".

Demand went sky high, and has stayed high ever since.

As political moves go, the 1994 AWB has got to rank high as one of the stupidest things ever done. It didn't have any effect on crime (the stated purpose), it upset and motivated a large number of people who had previously been quiet and complacent, it created a huge market for the "forbidden fruit" and on top of that, it was done in an election year, the summer before the elections, which meant that the public had not yet forgotten their anger with the party who pushed the law.

The 94 elections took control of Congress away from the Democrats for the first time in 40 years! And they knew it. Never admitted it to the press or the public, but amongst them selves it was recognized.

The only lesson the Democrats seem to have learned from that is not to push major gun control during an election year.

26 years later now, and seems that's still the only lesson they learned from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top